How likely are you to ever pay for verification if you don't currently pay for it on Facebook or Instagram?

What about if Meta included new features for paying users, such as, for instance, the ability to include links in Reels?

That's one of several options apparently on the table as Meta looks for ways to drive more take-up of its Meta Verified program.
Meta is asking surveyed users which features they would pay for in its apps.

The features that, according to Meta, people will pay for include:

Original content protection (via human review)
Faster ad reviews
Better access to customer support
Links in Reels (8 per month)
Customer support case monitoring
Alternate brand message display
Alternate brand verification badge something like X's gold tick?
Some interesting considerations, though I'm not sure any of them represent significant carrots that will drive a big boost in subscriptions.

After all, it's been a year now since Meta first launched its "Meta Verified" paid-for subscription service, bringing with it verification tick, improved impersonation protection, dedicated support, and much, much more - all for the low, low price of a paltry $US11.99 per month (when bought on the web), but it seems that a lot of users have seemingly cooled on the offering.

Meta has not yet disclosed any official figures about the adoption of Meta Verified, but if we consider Meta's numbers over Q4 and use a rather very rough measure, it is safe to say that the company probably sold several million subscriptions between Q2 and Q4 last year. Meta's "Other" income grew by more than $100 million over this period, and of course, most of that, would likely have been from Verified subscribers.

That would not come as a shock. Meta, the parent of Facebook, Messenger, IG, and WhatsApp, has nearly 4 billion users and 5 million or so subscribers would come in at less than 1% of its total user base about the rate that most social subscription offerings are seeing.

And trust me, another $100 million or so per year would easily be worth more investment and attention in the program. But at the same time, much like with X's paid verification initiative, the entire act of selling checkmarks undermines their value, so in reality, the more subscriptions Meta sells, the less it's worth either way, unless you're including the other factors.

And those do have value, especially more direct access to Meta support, but I'm not sure that it's worth the ongoing investment for most, with the features only offering marginal, periodic value, even for brands.
Maybe, some of those above additions would be worth it, but at $144 a year, invested into platforms that are also free and both continually reducing reach (unless you're creating Reels), you probably would do better just tipping that money into ad campaigns instead.

Individual results will vary, but some have been and will be seeing benefit from Meta Verified. I just don't see it becoming a larger consideration for the majority of users just yet.

Although, if Meta were to add a reach boost, as it did with its first offering package Meta Verified, that may become of interest. That would also partly negate the value for as many people who do join up, and a number of these options do appear like some kind of road to nowhere, which should't be included in any paid offering.

The thing is, of course, that Meta's making money off it, and a lot of money. Not in terms of the total amount Meta takes, but in real numbers.   As such, it probably will stay, but if Meta wants to get more people and brands paying, they might need to offer better incentives than this.